how I feel when open science initiatives choose to publish in Nature
cannot measure the weight of the hundreds of work hours that this has taken so far (massive thanks to all co-authors for patience)-- so many things happened that perhaps i'll do a narrative thread later when the energy is there
Tässä sama ongelma kuin ERCn aiemmin ilmoittamassa muutoksessa, joka peruutettiin kun huomattiin ongelma: karenssi tulee pisteistä 1-4, jonka asettaa ilmeisesti edelleen paneeli (eli edustaja joka lukee hakemuksen)-- rangaistukset eivät tule ammattiarvion perusteella vaan panelistin mutu-tuntumalla
I sympathise with review pressures but cannot believe this is anywhere near an optimal solution: the ERC panel review is the weakest part of the process, based on short summaries & non-topic experts-- punishments will be given unfairly, not even based on the actual B2 applications
The process has taken almost 3 years now & the paper remains published in NHB without an expression of concern-- the main design flaw we outline is retraction-size and so simple that it can be understood with primary school math, curious if/when Nature ever finds the time to correct the literature
Finally here! i've got super high hopes for this new platform especially after earlier T&F experiences-- will keep submitting & others should too, all fingers cross for its success
Those working in the UK: is it normal to collect data there without a privacy and research notification for consenting participants?
This needs frequent visibility, as many ppl still don't know-- also saying this from a place where I've both published & reviewed there in the past but it's 2026 now and winds have changed
-- seurauksena matteus-efekti, jossa aiempien saavutusten perusteella panelistin seulan läpi pääsevät tutkijat menestyvät vielä entistä paremmin
